Issue that is itching my brain...

[LMNO]

Yup.

The staggering predictability of human behavior as they behave en mass.

[Cramulus]

I hereby refuse to subscribe to any theorem that dictates freewill to not exist.

OP solved!

Jailbreak! go!

[Bo]

Easy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories.  In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will.  Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.

but quantum fuzzyness only tells you that there is a probabilistic distribution in possible things to happen. It explicitly does not allow for a 'choice' (whatever that means at this level) in what to happen. So how does quantum relate to will?

On the other hand (just love to kill my own arguments...), going from the quantum probability of something, to the actual event is a completely ununderstood problem (measurement problem, look it up)

btw you can circumvent Bell's theorem.

[Triple Zero]

Easy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories.  In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will.  Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.

ok, let's assume that the universe being based on stochastic theories indeed implies that large-scale physical determination is impossible.

then still this only leads the way to the conclusion that free could be possible, not that the thing happening in Bell's theorem is causing it.

then comes the problem with the assumption. at quantum scale, the universe is nondeterministic. while this might imply that on a macro-scale the universe is also nondeterministic, it ends up as a probability of 1x10^-zillion that a macro-system actually does something nondeterministic. this is not the sort of nondeterminism we're looking for in free will here.
because free will doing something (seemingly) nondeterministic happens way more often than that.

the answer is that large scale (seeming) nondeterminism [meaning] can follow out of a smaller scale (seemingly) deterministic system [chemical physics] by ways of chaos theory: the equations to step up in scale from small to larger get very complicated very quickly, and if the number of different components becomes larger than 10 (exact number depends on actual system, but usually very small) there will be no analytical solution for the system, this can be proven. which is when we step to computers, to solve the problem numerically. but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.

LMNO: sorry but i don't understand how you say i'm conflating these issues? at which point was i talking about what?

[LMNO]

the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)

To be more precise, it seems you're implying conflation.

That is, it looks as if you're suggesting applying chaos theory, which is about rules of motion, to human behavior.

[Cramulus]

...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.

Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?

--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?

(not agreeing or disagreeing, just making sure I'm reading you correctly)

[Triple Zero]

the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)

Can the inverse ever be true? seemingly deterministic behaviour arising from a nondeterministic system? Can't think of any way...

yes, certain stochastic systems. like quantum systems.

also, what LMNO said, large groups of people.

the thing is, depending on whether the system is chaotic or not, the variation in initial values will get amplified or not.
for other systems, even random initial values can converge to a deterministic outcome. think about the system called "average of dice rolls", which is nondeterministic at base, but in the limit converges to the expectation value of the die.

LMNO: no i think you misunderstand. the chaostheory is applied to the (seemingly deterministic) chemical system that is our brain/body, which because of chaostheory is able to produce nondeterministic phenomena (and emergent properties, even), and our brain/body produces human behaviour as well.

[Triple Zero]

...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.

Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?

--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?

yes.

at least, this is my current way of looking at things.

i of course reserve the right to 180 degrees change my opinion in the view of contradicting evidence, or an even better theory (still a scientist, afterall)

[Jenne]

One hundred EIGHTY degrees, 000?

Beware of that...leads to people thinking you have no real conviction in an argument.

[Triple Zero]

so?

sucks to be those people then.

if i, in the light of new evidence, have to turn around my previously stated opinion a 180 degrees, then i'll be damned if i let the opinion of other people make me change less or more
fuck i don't think i could live with myself if i did
maybe, if i really cared about the other people, and i didn't want to shock them, i would only tell them a few degrees at a time, but in my own mind i'll turn and swoop as i damn well please

[Jenne]

Conviction in your argument wins many over even when your argument is shite or weak.  And knowledge that you sway the opposite direction will lead your oponent to think you aren't really behind what you are saying.  It's just strategy, is all.

But if you don't care, you don't care.  That's that.

[Cramulus]

convictions cause convicts. 
I don't think 000 is trying to "win" here, we're all just passing this idea back and forth to see it through. Hopefully the outcome of these discussions is determined (hah) by the merit of the arguments, not the rhetorical dressing.

...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.

Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?

--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?

yes.

at least, this is my current way of looking at things.

i of course reserve the right to 180 degrees change my opinion in the view of contradicting evidence, or an even better theory (still a scientist, afterall)

I think the problem here is that if intelligence is a measure of complexity (which seems to make sense), complexity is a subjective, human distinction. A robust, parsimonious system may not be complex at all except to the observer.

I guess the follow up question is about the definition of intelligence. But that sounds like a semantic rabbit hole. The free will you're talking about - is it a property of intelligence, or is intelligence a property of free will? Or is that another semantic rabbit hole?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Conviction in your argument wins many over even when your argument is shite or weak.  And knowledge that you sway the opposite direction will lead your oponent to think you aren't really behind what you are saying.  It's just strategy, is all.

But if you don't care, you don't care.  That's that.

Lack of conviction in an argument actually lends it strength.

"I don't believe this but I can't argue against" is the nearest I will come to a statement of fact.

It's more honest than "I believe this and will not back down even if you prove me wrong." -- implies you have not considered alternatives which may only have become apparent after you adopted the belief. Which, in turn, implies you have not completely thought your argument through.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

arguing against obvious disproof of your argument might not get you anywhere logically.

but it won't get you impeached either, apparently.

[Triple Zero]

I think the problem here is that if intelligence is a measure of complexity (which seems to make sense), complexity is a subjective, human distinction. A robust, parsimonious system may not be complex at all except to the observer.

I guess the follow up question is about the definition of intelligence. But that sounds like a semantic rabbit hole. The free will you're talking about - is it a property of intelligence, or is intelligence a property of free will? Or is that another semantic rabbit hole?

i don't really think complexity is that subjective. at least not the specific sort of complexity required for intelligence, consciousness, self-consciousness and free will (probably in that order--my guess).

i don't know this for sure but i think there are a few mathematic variables that describe the complexity of a system in various ways (interconnectedness, several measures of how it reacts to changes in initial conditions etc), the problem is of course, if you can't measure these values in a practical way, yes, then there's not much you can say about how a system works from the inside. too bad.

to the other question, my first guess would be that free will is a property of intelligence and not the other way around. for the notion of "free will" you need high level symbols, not even just language (signs), but you need self-consciousness, because the sign "free will" has no meaning if you cannot say "I have free will".

hm and yes, this seems to imply that "free will" is a purely semantic notion. not some irrefutable property of a system, but only something the system can say about itself, and, to a degree, about other systems like it.

once again, coming back to the conclusion that "free will" is a sort of illusion, but not necessarily a bad one  (i got to this conclusion a few pages back, as well)

but i see nothing wrong with that.

also i see not much of a way how it can be otherwise.

what is "free will", except for something a system can say about itself?